"The best time to do so is before negotiations," said Councilman Nick Licata, chairman of the committee. "We will listen to the comments and take them into consideration when we draw up the items to be negotiated."

Police guild leaders also are gathering input. Guild President Rich O'Neill said results of a survey sent out to officers are expected by the end of the month.

The police contract is set to expire at the end of the year, and both sides are preparing to meet in the coming weeks to establish the issues they will negotiate. Once the guild and city officials agree on the issues, neither side can alter the agenda.

The public hearing, she said, "provides an opportunity to try to get into the contract provisions that will allow the review board to operate more effectively. I think that's a big issue."

Complaints against Seattle police are investigated by the OPA, led by a civilian director under the chief of police. The investigators are police officers. Overseeing the work of the OPA is an auditor and a three-member civilian review board.

For more than three years, members of the review board have sought access to investigation files on the complaints reviewed by the OPA, and assurance from the city that if any review board members are sued over the contents of their reports, the city would defend them in court.

So far, their efforts have met with little success. The files that board members review are heavily edited, with information that could identify the officers involved removed or blacked out.

And the city has so far refused to provide the members with any written document assuring them of legal protection. Board members have been so concerned by that lack of protection that they have not issued a report since 2003.

Hampton said those issues need to be addressed before anything else regarding police oversight can be handled.

"If you want to continue to have the review board operate as an institution, then you have to give it the tools it needs," Hampton said. "Otherwise, it's setting up a structure that's not particularly effective. It sort of sets them up for failure."

An ordinance Licata recently introduced would clarify the legal protection for board members and deals with the issue of the incomplete reports the review board gets.

If approved, the ordinance would allow the board access to unredacted files beginning in March 2007, after a new police contract is approved.

But the current contract with the police guild includes language that prohibits the review board from gaining access to complete files. O'Neill believes that would keep the ordinance from ever taking effect.

"It's our position it will be shot down pretty quick by a judge," O'Neill said.

The guild has opposed complete files being provided to the review board.

"I don't see the need for them (the board members) to have individual names of officers," O'Neill said.

The board, he said, is meant to review the OPA process, not individual cases.

"I think it's time we moved and started looking at other aspects of the department, rather than just focusing on this issue of discipline," he said. "There's not too much you can change in the process."

Hampton disagrees.

"I think there are ongoing issues over how well citizen oversight works," she said, adding, "I think we need to get the existing structure in place to operate more effectively."